Bharat Rakshak

in response to Paki sniping at our boys. How much of this is ever reported

. KG and Poonch are sectors that are Hot and have been hot for a long time - .

Spoke to a someone, he said BSF add mirch masala to the story usually but just those 2 sectors (poonch and krishna Ghatti) are a problem because both sides have aggressive commanders in those sectors.

Sanku

I was having dinner with driver of a big shot Intel guy from GCC

He told me the most aggressive commanders were posted tpoonch since the 80s

Remember the quote from an IA officer

Compared to rest of loc poonch is barbaric

After lunch we open with machine guns at each other

I too was busy on Sunday. I met someone who said the Custodians of the two remaining Kashimiri Jihadis are in a crisis mode and has commandeered a truckload of NATO's Isabgol supply for their own use. Haqqanis are gathering outside KFC restaurant in strength and this time, they wont go back until Zardari's nugget is finger-licked. Kiyani is finished.

Sanku

I was having dinner with driver of a big shot Intel guy from GCC

He told me the most aggressive commanders were posted tpoonch since the 80s

Remember the quote from an IA officer

Compared to rest of loc poonch is barbaric

After lunch we open with machine guns at each other

^^ Today Hindu has a article by Swami on how the ISI is undergoing a ops review currently under Saif Ali Khan's uncle, Gen Pataudi and the next few months might see lots of Jihadi activity in India under a renewed thrust by the ISI. Hope that we dont keep aggressive commanders at the ingress points lest we are subjected to another == with TSP!

Also mentions about how secularism died in the 1970s in TSP and only Indians seem to believe that TSP is a state with secular junta waiting to come forth once the upper communal rulers are removed.

The article seem to have been removed from the online version though!

His successor, Muhammad Zaheer-ul-Islam, has made no similar public pronouncements, but there are signs his thinking isn’t far different. The ISI’s media and political divisions have been revitalised. Its Kashmir operations division, led by Zaheer-ul-Islam appointee Major-General Isfandiyar Ali Khan Pataudi, is also going through a thorough-going reorganisation. India’s intelligence services fear the organisation could resume more aggressive support for jihadist groups in coming months

A CoI has been ordered to look into the reasons behind the accidental firing incident in the firing range in Kupwara in which Major Surendra Badsara of the 4 Para (SF) was seriously injured and later succumbed to injuries

Sources ruled out the possibility of any foul play in the incident. Badsara's battalion 4 Para (SF) is deployed in Jammu and Kashmir for carrying out counter insurgency operations there and had taken part in several successful missions.

Personnel policies: Army shoots itself in the foot


Maj Navdeep Singh

Military officers are quick to blame bureaucrats, but it is their own arbitrary and parochial attitude and policies, without any understanding or training for administration, that are to be blamed. In the bargain, the military becomes its own greatest enemy

Camaraderie has been the hallmark of defence services but the same is not just meant for the battlefield but for normal day-to-day life too which actually and practically affects personnel and their families

HUMANS are alike. Wearing a uniform may suppress, but not fully insulate them from corruption, greed, power-play et al, vices inherent to human race. But besides grit and courage, what sets military personnel apart from the others is the sharp ability to self-destruct and to invent self-defeatist masterstrokes as far as welfare, manpower and personnel policies are concerned.

Whichever side one may be, what the Army Chief's age row has brought fore is that there is a belief doing the rounds, factual or fictional, that meticulous, surgically incisive processes are constantly at play where careers of those who may pose a future threat are played with crudely and ruthlessly and all this happens behind closed doors under a cloak of secrecy marked 'national security', which is not actually in consonance with the age of transparency we live in. The lucky few in key appointments have their way and others can only pull their hair in despair. The number of cases pending before Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal and other Courts, and the kind of strictures passed on such matters bear testimony to the chaos at work. It is yet another matter that even in well-rounded verdicts, the system, out of egotism, tries its best to wear out its own personnel by litigating till the highest court.

Arbitrary attitude and policies

While military officers are quick to point fingers at the bureaucrat, it is their own arbitrary and parochial attitude and policies, without any basic understanding or training for administration, that are to be blamed. In the bargain, the military becomes the military's own greatest enemy.

The examples are many. Recently the Supreme Court reportedly reprimanded the Army for creating artificial hurdles for its own officers when an appeal was filed against a lady officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department whose case had been allowed by the AFT granting her promotions and permanent commission. Till date, the Army, based on an internal artificial interpretation by the Military Secretary's Branch, is promoting Short Service Officers commissioned prior to 2006 as Captains in nine years of service while those commissioned after 2006 are being promoted to the same rank in two years. The impediment was not created by with the Ministry of Defence, but by the Army. When the Military's medical establishment was directed by Courts to grant medical facilities to its elderly retired Emergency Commissioned Officers based on an already existing Government Order, the Army itself was quick to challenge it before the Supreme Court. Imagine, the Army approaching the Supreme Court with a prayer that the same Army may be directed to withdraw medical facilities from its own officers, some of them in their 80s.

When the Navy and Air Force vouched for implementation of the Non-Functional Upgradation for the defence services, as already applicable to civil services, which guarantees the pay of a Lieutenant General in a time-bound manner to superseded officers, the Army was the first to oppose putting across the banal argument that if implemented there would be 'no charm for higher ranks'. When all Doctors of the Central Government were granted a 'Dynamic Assured Progression Scheme', the Army itself tooth and nail opposed its implementation for its own doctors on the pretext that doctors would then start getting higher salaries than other officers.

Faulty interpretation of rules

While the civilian establishment is constantly blamed for degradation of status of military officers, the Army, in the Military Engineering Services (MES) itself places senior promotee military officers of the rank of Major and lady officers of similar rank as Assistant Garrison Engineers, an appointment tenable by Subedar-equivalent civilian officers, while directly commissioned officers of the rank of Major with much lesser length of service are posted on higher appointments such as Garrison Engineers, all again based on an artificial, faulty and forced interpretation of existing rules.

Recently, based on a decision taken by the Prime Minister, young army officers, both Permanent and Short Service Commissioned, up to 35 years of age with 5 years of service and in fit medical category, were sought for lateral induction into the Indian Police Service through a statutory gazette notification. But rather than moving with the times, the Army Headquarters, based on an outdated policy promulgated in 1987, issued a circular pointing out that only those Permanent Commissioned Officers would be permitted to apply for the IPS who had only two years of service left (that is, who were 50 years old), or who were in low medical category, or who had completed 18 years of service but had not passed their promotion exams. Needless to say, it's a no-brainer that all such categories 'allowed' by the Army HQ were actually ineligible to be inducted into the IPS as per the notification.

Whenever there is a welfare oriented proposal or proactive personnel policy under consideration of the Government which elements in the bureaucracy would not like to see implemented, they simply throw it in the court of the defence services for a consultative process for they know that first the Army, Navy and the Air Force would start struggling between themselves, and then the fight would shift inter-se between the fighting Arms, then it would be fighting arms versus support arms and finally arms versus services. The end product would be zilch resulting in sniggers from the ringside.

Shedding obstructive approach

So where does the fault lie? Is it because of the stiff competition and ACR oriented 'smile up - kick down' culture or is it because of plain lack of understanding of finer aspects of personnel management and lack of administrative acumen or downright foolhardiness? The answer is hard to find. It seems that in a nation with the psyche of public servants deriving power by imposing obstacles, red-tape and impediments in the ordinary life of a common citizen, officers holding key appointments in the military feel powerless when they compare themselves with their civilian counterparts. Hence the only way to feel powerful is by posing hindrances in areas of policy where the pen can be used as an authoritative instrument of damage, and that damage unfortunately is restricted to within the uniformed services. As a sequel, creation of restrictive clauses and provisos becomes a tool of ego empowerment through which the policy writer feels potent. Liberal construal is abandoned for sadism and a sub-culture emerges where cribbing is rampant and peer happiness is not tolerated.

The Army has to wake up and smell the coffee. The obstructive, inward-looking conservative approach has to go, times are such. Camaraderie has been the hallmark of defence services but the same is not just meant for the battle field but for normal day to day life too which actually and practically affects personnel and their families. A recent positive example would be the strong efforts of the Army's Personnel Services Directorate in reducing litigation and convincing the Defence Ministry to withdraw appeals filed against its disabled soldiers bringing succour and kudos to the organisation. The positivity must spread and must spread fast to other spheres, otherwise the self-inflicted injury to the heretofore seemingly strong foundation would make the organisation a laughing stock leading to a spectacular derailment of the only institution every Indian has been unconditionally proud of.

Bare facts

Supreme Court recently rapped the Army for creating artificial hurdles for its own officers in a case related to the promotion and grant of permanent commission to a woman officer.

The Navy and the Air Force vouched for non-functional upgradation,as applicable to civil services, that would grant pay of
Lt Gen to superseded officers, but the Army opposed it.

When all central government doctors were granted Dynamic Assured Progression Scheme, Army opposed it for its own officers.

In MES, the Army places Majors and Lt Cols in appointments tenable by Subedar-equivalent civilian MES cadre.
On the PM’s directives, military officers below 35 years were sought for lateral induction into the IPS, but the Army, citing an outdated circular of 1987, put a spanner in the works.

The writer practises in the Punjab and Haryana High Court

Rift in Army cadres over new promotion policy
Shishir Arya, TNN | Jun 25, 2012, 12.32AM IST



NAGPUR: The issue of promotions is leading to a rift among different cadres of the Indian Army. The services and the supporting arms (non-fighting branches) have alleged that the promotion system discriminates against them vis-a-vis fighting units.

The Army is broadly divided into three categories. The arms include infantry, armoured, artillery and mechanized infantry while the services include service and ordnance corps as well as EME. The supporting arms are the signals, engineers, air defence and army aviation.

The problem is that the present system, implemented since 2009, hampers career prospects of those in non-fighting branches, creating an undue advantage for those in the arms to become full colonel. Promotions up to the rank of Lt Colonels are time-bound and selections are made after that.

It all began with a serving lt colonel from Army Service Corps (ASC), which deals in supplies, writing a letter to the chief of army staff (COAS) and expressing discontent over promotion policy. According to him, the policy strongly favours the arms and undermines the career prospects of those in services. It was an unprecedented event by itself.

However, a group of 19 officers of lt colonel rank, mainly from ASC, joined by a couple from the engineers later filed a petition in the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking a change in the policy. It is due to be heard next week.

There have also been instances of directors general (DG) heading some of the corps writing to army headquarters over the last year voicing similar concerns. TOI had access to excerpts of two such letters. Last week, some DGs have again sent letters on the same lines.

They are stressing that the policy is leading to dissatisfaction among personnel, creating an unhealthy work culture. Those in the lower rungs argue they did not join the services or supporting arms out of choice. The allocations are made when the officers pass out of the Indian Military Academy (IMA). Moreover, they also serve initial tenures in infantry regiments and earn gallantry medals while the services and supporting arms go into battle as a single division with the fighting arms.

A section of officers allege that the move to ensure faster promotion to the rank of colonel from the arms is to ensure that officers from the same branch get more presence in higher ranks like brigadier and major general.

Even as DGs are lobbying at the headquarters, lt colonels are preparing for their case to be heard at the tribunal. The group says the command-based model introduced after 2009 has led to their juniors in the arms superseding them.

The group of officers has collected documents by filing requests under RTI to prove their point. The policy, implemented on the lines of suggestions of the AV Singh Committee, was to lead to better career prospects and early promotions in armed forces. However, while implementing the new policy based on the recommendations the word 'armed forces', which meant the entire army, was replaced by 'arms'. This indirectly led to an undue advantage for combat branches, alleged an officer in the group.

The new policy, termed command-based model, specifies that every colonel in the infantry stays in command of a unit for 2.5 years before moving ahead for a new stint. This period is three years for armoured, artillery and mechanized infantry. However, the command tenure for the services has been fixed at five years.

So, the turnover is faster in the arms and slow in the services and support arms. For example, a colonel commanding an infantry regiment will remain there for 2.5 years and move ahead for another posting. This will give another officer down the line a chance to become colonel. So a higher number of officers get a chance to become colonel in the arms while those in services remain stuck, said the source.

The army too is sensing the seriousness of the problem and a committee has been formed under a lt general to address the matter. TOI has access to excerpts of orders dated May 30, 2012, directing a holistic appraisal of the policy for allocation of select ranks as implemented in 2009. The terms of reference include suggesting modifications of any 'caveats' included in the policy. Caveats are the conditions put in place by the 2009 policy that officers from services and supporting arms are objecting to, say sources.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/malegaon-blast-did-army-go-wrong-in-lt-colonel-purohit-s-case-237826

New Delhi: The Indian Army appears to be caught in the cross-hairs of a big new controversy - in 2008, it may have acted too quickly in accepting that a serving military intelligence officer, Lt Col Prasad Purohit, was linked to a right-wing terror group.

{So blaming the Army for the civilians charge accusing him of being a terrorist!!! Wasnt Gen Deepak Kapoor benficiary of Adharsh scam the chief at that time?}

In 2008, a bomb exploded on a Friday evening near a mosque in the town of Malegaon, killing six people. One month later, the Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) in Maharashtra said a group of Hindu right-wing radicals was to blame. Lt Col Purohit, who was posted in Pachmarhi, undergoing an Arabic Language course, was accused and arrested.

The Army, without conducting an immediate court of inquiry, handed him over to the ATS. Later, it did order a court of inquiry but did not allow Lt Col Purohit to cross-examine witnesses.


{I think Gen Kapoor couldnt put his foot down as he was on shaky ground}

Two years later, under orders from the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Army restarted the court of Inquiry.

Now, more than 50 army personnel have testified that the Army may have wrongly handed over Lt Col Purohit to the Anti-Terror Squad without conducting its own investigation. Lt Col Purohit, who has been in a jail in Taloja in Mumbai, was allowed to cross-examine witnesses in Mumbai.

Many said that he was actually an infiltrator and not a conspirator, who had been assigned to collect evidence and details of right-wing terror groups.

From the very beginning, Lt Col Purohit has claimed that he had kept his bosses informed of his activities which included attending meetings of the Abhinav Bharat.

But if the officer was operating on behalf of the military, the Army has to figure out why his tip-offs on rising right-wing extremism in areas like Nashik, Malegaon were not shared with other agencies.

{looks like an IB planted story. What was IB doing instead of protecting the first family and INC big wigs from chappals and slaps?}

There's also the issue of why the Army or civil agencies like the ATS did not hold its own investigation.

Lt Col Purohit has also accused a colonel in Military Intelligence of colluding with civilian intelligence agencies to detain him without any arrest warrant and torture him. The Colonel, Purohit says, wanted to score brownie points and earn award etc.

The Army, however, says the Colonel in question was officially deputed to liaise with civil agencies

Colonel wants to become a MHA benficiary!

No I want him promoted to his next rank as its due.
Need such guys to be in the military not out of it.

in pure ranking of idiotic imports

note: Gorshkov is at least partly political so we will let it be

1.Second batch of T 90s (being charitable )
2. ordering hawk after a dozen years?
3. importng a basic trainer


then there are some where we are paying idiotic prices for good products
M2K upgrade ranks up there

The saddest part is that IA just kept shut for so many years and (many Army chiefs came and went). It really sounds bizzare and a good script for some Bollywood drama

This UPA government has shot the nation in foot by creating a bogey of 'Saffron terror' to blunt the ire directed at Islamic terror in India. They kept quiet even in case of Col Purohit as it served their purpose and with a compliant chief (more bothered to save his investments) an officer went through all this. Not even the formalities were conducted in his case.
Now pawkistan will say that Goevrnment of India bowed under pressure from Indian Army and rararararara...

Ugh ......... I wonder what India has done to deserve such jokers at the helm.

errr...voted them to the helm?

AF protests ‘widen red role’ order

SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, July 1: The Indian Air Force has been asked to expand Operation Triveni — the air support for counter-Maoist operations — to eight states from five but it has told the government that its helicopters are running unacceptable risks because of poor support from the Union home ministry and the state governments.

The home ministry is in fact hoping that it will have greater co-operation from the defence ministry in the counter-Maoist operations with a new army chief, General Bikram Singh, taking over last month.

But the IAF, the only military outfit directly involved officially in the counter-Maoist operations, is now finding it difficult to sustain Operation Triveni in the absence of infrastructure.

The former army chief, General V.K. Singh, who retired on May 31, had resolutely opposed home ministry proposals to involve the army in counter-Maoist operations.

Earlier this month, V.K. Singh had told The Telegraph that in November 2011, the Union home ministry had come up with a “flat-headed proposal” to re-deploy some of the 63 battalions of the Rashtriya Rifles from Jammu and Kashmir to Maoist-hit districts in Chhattisgarh “to secure the camps of 75 battalions of the central police forces while the police would go out into the jungles to hunt for Naxals”.

V.K. Singh said he had turned down the proposal because it was unworkable and added that the home ministry was treating the army not as “an instrument of last resort as defence minister A.K. Antony has been saying” but as a constabulary.

Now the air force has told the government that its helicopters have been shot at about 10 times in the recent past. On four occasions, suspected Maoists have hit the helicopters with small arms but the sturdiness of the Mi-17s and the precautions taken by the aircrew — such as steep dives to land and steep take-offs — have been chiefly responsible for the no-casualty report on the air operation.

In 2008, an IAF crewman in a helicopter was killed in ground fire by Maoists near Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, as his chopper was taking-off.

In pointing out that the helicopters have taken flak four times, the IAF is also warning the government that the Maoists are getting better at targeting and that they have developed the firepower. The copters deployed in the counter-Maoist operations are armoured.

Operation Triveni, the codename given to the “air maintenance” of troops in Maoist-hit districts, began in 2010 with two Mi 17 helicopters. The number was first increased to four and now stands at six, and the operation has been expanded to cover Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Areas from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have been added recently.

The home ministry has also asked the IAF for more helicopters because BSF copters were not flight-worthy enough in critical situations. The Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand governments have also been chartering private helicopters for the counter-Maoist operations.

The home ministry’s insistence has increased largely because its plan to wet-lease 13 Mi-17 helicopters was practically nixed after the former army chief indicted businessman Ravi Rishi’s company in a deal for Tatra trucks. The Mi-17 multi-utility helicopters cost an estimated Rs 45 crore each.

Ravi Rishi also owns Global Vectra Helicorp, the largest private supplier of helicopters in the country, through which the home ministry was planning to lease the helicopters. The directorate-general of civil aviation was asked to suspend Global Vectra’s licence in the wake of the Tatra row.

In presentations to the government, the IAF has said it would continue with its task of moving central police forces and equipment and evacuating casualties but wants the state governments to set up hangars and secure helipads for its copters.

The IAF has said the tasking for its helicopters must be routed through an inspector-general of the CRPF based in Raipur.

“We get too many requests for helicopter support that are not routed through the tasking officer. We have been ordered to take our brief from him but the police just call at random and ask for helicopters without appreciating how we operate,” an IAF officer said.

The officer said that in south Chhattisgarh’s Jagdalpur, for example, from where the IAF helicopters have flown frequently in support of central forces, the hangars were not yet built. Even in Chintalnar, an area near Mukram where the Maoists killed 75 central policemen on April 6, 2010, the IAF is unsure if the helipad is sanitised.

The air force had also asked the state and central forces to “pre-position” fuel stocks. But this has not been done. The IAF has said that the local administration in the Maoist-hit areas should “pre-position” fuel.

Also, said the officer: “They want us to switch off the engines without sanitising helipads in risky areas. The standard operating procedure requires that the IAF helicopters descend on helipads in risky areas in a steep dive, keep the engines and rotors running, and take off in two minutes.”